On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:19:50PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: > >Axel Thimm (Axel Thimm ATrpms net) said: > > > >>On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 10:26:01AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > >> > >>>Do we want to keep API/ABI stable over the corresponding RHEL release? > >>> > >>It would be interesting to have a document that described RH's specs > >>in this area. E.g. which API/ABI are more important that others. RHEL > >>has certainly kept some parts more flexible than others, for example > >>wireless API/ABI on almost each kernel update. > >> > > > >It depends on the release, but generally, symbols used by external > >modules must be kept fixed. However, various subsystems (libata, wireless) > >may change. > > > >With the exception of very specific things (the wireless-tools things > >mentioned, which caused its own headaches), the userspace library ABI > >is considered pretty much sacrosanct. > > > >Bill > > > Unlike in 'official' RHEL, I'd think the emphasis here is just on best > effort for stability. As long as we're cautious I think it will be fine. Well, "stability" is quite overloaded, so we may need to disambiguate it and decide on each flavour: a) stability as in doesn't break in itself b) stability as in doesn't break other external apps E.g. b) includes keeping API/ABIs stable and suggests backports. RHEL targets both. Do we, too? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpcwwQ7n5ISV.pgp
Description: PGP signature